Exit Negotiations.

[Granny Danger]

On the subject of constitutional crisis

We've now got fixed term parliaments what happens if the tories split and nobody can command a majority

We don't have a constitution. The fixed term parliament act could be altered or abolished by a simple majority vote.

[mjw]

Under the FTPA, Parliament’s fixed five-year term can only be truncated in two ways. First, if more than two thirds of the House of Commons vote to call an election – and that means 434 of the 650 MPs, not just two thirds of those in the chamber. The second is more complicated. If a motion of no confidence is passed or there is a failed vote of confidence, there is a 14-day period in which to pass an act of confidence in a new government. If no such vote is passed, a new election must be held, probably a mere 17 working days later.

Eta-from the Institute for government website.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

We don't have a constitution. The fixed term parliament act could be altered or abolished by a simple majority vote.

You'd hope people could at least agree on that

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Do you think we can negotiate entry to the EU at the same time as negotiating exit from the UK. I cannot see that there will not be some cross-over between the two that will make this exceedingly difficult.

There is no precedent so who really knows.

I know people have quoted about Spain but this clearly is quite different.

I think it comes down to if the EU wants to retain at least part of the UK within the EU, perhaps as an incentive for the rest to return at some future point.

That is not some vain hope - if the EU us still going strong in 20-30 years time I'd fully expect the whole of the UK to be in membership due to pure demographics.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Agree with almost all of that, but think you'll find that the Canary Islands are part of the EU and it's only on VAT related issues they are left outside:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_value_added_tax#EU_VAT_area

Think Nicola Sturgeon will go through the motions of exploring whether it can be done as part of laying the groundwork for a second referendum.

She'll explore and come back and say only an iScotland can do it.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

It's an interesting point but EU law has supremacy over UK law under the terms of the EU Treaty. After notice is given under Article 50, the two year limit to complete negotiations applies. If there is no agreement, Britain leaves without one.

If Holyrood does not give its consent and blocked Brexit negotiations, Scotland would be out with the rest of the UK at the end of the 2 year period. The SNP tends to ignore inconvenient Articles in the EU Treaty so this blocking myth could be spun for several months.

If no agreement is reachrd then the the UK has to have WTO rules being in place.

Do you understand the consequence of that?

You clearly don't have a fucking clue

[sparky88]

I wonder if we might get a majority of MPs ignoring the referendum result and voting against the repeal of article 50 or the eventual settlement with Brussels. For a start, the snp/independent Scottish MPs would be wise to heed their constituents wishes and vote against leaving the EU at all junctures. The same goes for London and NI MPs. For the rest, if the Leave team come back with a settlement that involves even limited free movement, is that really what The ordinary, Turk fearing middle England voter had in mind when they voted Leave. Leave have created a rod for their own back with their xenophobic campaign because they won't be able to give the people of middle England what they want without completely fucking up the economy. As a result would MPs feel comfortable voting for a settlement that Entails anything less than the complete pulling up of the drawbridge if their constituents have voted as much as 80% Leave.

[Yank Mike]

I wonder if we might get a majority of MPs ignoring the referendum result and voting against the repeal of article 50 or the eventual settlement with Brussels. For a start, the snp/independent Scottish MPs would be wise to heed their constituents wishes and vote against leaving the EU at all junctures. The same goes for London and NI MPs. For the rest, if the Leave team come back with a settlement that involves even limited free movement, is that really what The ordinary, Turk fearing middle England voter had in mind when they voted Leave. Leave have created a rod for their own back with their xenophobic campaign because they won't be able to give the people of middle England what they want without completely fucking up the economy. As a result would MPs feel comfortable voting for a settlement that Entails anything less than the complete pulling up of the drawbridge if their constituents have voted as much as 80% Leave.

So, let's see how the English really feel when you ignore a democratically decided referendum?

 

Would be interesting for sure..

[Yank Mike]

BTW, this threads debate is why the US Founders put the 2nd Amendment into our Constitution.

[sparky88]

So, let's see how the English really feel when you ignore a democratically decided referendum?

Would be interesting for sure..

unless they get full closed borders some leavers won't be happy- I believe they'll see it as anti democratic if we remain in the common market in any way (which I'm sure we will).

The leave campaign in Scotland wasn't anywhere near as hostile actually, basing their campaign on 'more powers for the Scottish Parliament'. I actually think their campaign was very successful - like the SNP in the 2016 elections, they got over a million votes.

[Antiochas III]

BTW, this threads debate is why the US Founders put the 2nd Amendment into our Constitution.

No it's not you plank. It was based on English Common Law.

The importance of the second amendment was put in place because the US were worried the Brits were going to come back, or that the Natives in the West would cause harm or the Spanish Empire might get hungry.

As for the vote, all MPs who's constituents voted to remain should vote against leaving the EU. The rest not so much

[WILLIEA]

So, let's see how the English really feel when you ignore a democratically decided referendum?

 

Would be interesting for sure..

That wasn't democracy in action, it was mob rule!

[Yank Mike]

No it's not you plank. It was based on English Common Law.

The importance of the second amendment was put in place because the US were worried the Brits were going to come back, or that the Natives in the West would cause harm or the Spanish Empire might get hungry.

As for the vote, all MPs who's constituents voted to remain should vote against leaving the EU. The rest not so much

Yep, based on the English common law idea that all Protestants could own guns. We extended that to all citizens. Just in case our government or other folks got any funny ideas about overturning elections or referendums.

[Granny Danger]

The idea that the Westminster Parliament should not implement the decision of the EU referendum result is completely ridiculous. However misleading the propaganda from both sides might have been and regardless of the tenor of the debate, the result must be accepted.

If Scotland had voted YES in 2014, or do so in a future Independence Referendum, are people suggesting that either the Scottish or Westminster parliaments would have the right to ignore that result?

[beermonkey]

That wasn't democracy in action, it was mob rule!

I see the tears & snotters haven't dried up yet.

 

It was a democratic referendum, we voted to leave the EU & folk need to accept it.

 

What we're seeing NOW is mob rule from the cry babies who don't like the result of a democratic referendum.

 

And for the record......getting out of the EU is a good thing. time will prove that correct.

[sparky88]

The idea that the Westminster Parliament should not implement the decision of the EU referendum result is completely ridiculous. However misleading the propaganda from both sides might have been and regardless of the tenor of the debate, the result must be accepted.

If Scotland had voted YES in 2014, or do so in a future Independence Referendum, are people suggesting that either the Scottish or Westminster parliaments would have the right to ignore that result?

I think you are right, however, I don't think it would be ridiculous to have another vote on the negotiations both in the EU case and Scottish independence, as a proxy for having MPs voting on it. To use the Scottish example, if people vote yes to get rid of trident and Westminster strikes a deal to rent Faslane to hold their nuclear weapons, are folk just meant to accept that?

[Antiochas III]

Yep, based on the English common law idea that all Protestants could own guns. We extended that to all citizens. Just in case our government or other folks got any funny ideas about overturning elections or referendums.

And when did the US last have a referendum?

You keep telling yourself that, good luck with your assault rifle against Reapers, Apache Gunships etc.

[jagfox]

From comments in the Gaurdian:

THIS IS MOST INTERESTING "From the guardians comments section:

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign." Credit Sarah Henney for providing this fascinating perspective.

[McSpreader]

From comments in the Gaurdian:

THIS IS MOST INTERESTING "From the guardians comments section:

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign." Credit Sarah Henney for providing this fascinating perspective.

Gosh.....that does make a lot of sense. We could have an election before article50 is invoked! Then it could all change again!

[Bishop Briggs]

From comments in the Gaurdian:

THIS IS MOST INTERESTING "From the guardians comments section:

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign." Credit Sarah Henney for providing this fascinating perspective.

 

That is wishful thinking. It's possible that Parliament could try to thwart Brexit. If it succeeded, UKIP would trash both the major parties at the next general election. There are practical reasons for not invoking Article 50 immediately. There could be differences in opinion between the Tory leadership candidates on which model to follow - Norway/Switzerland/WTO. MPs could vote for a different model to the new MP's preferred model. 

 

Gove has been in favour of Brexit for decades. He advocated the Swiss model in private. Vote Leave proposed the WTO model. However, despite Carswell's claim to the contrary on the BBC yesterday, Vote Leave will not determine the Brexit strategy. That will be for the new PM to agree with the EU and Parliament.

 

Merkel has said that Article 50 should be triggered before the end of the year. The new PM should be in office in September. By then, the debate on Brexit strategy will have taken place and Article 50 can be triggered after it being agreed with Brussels. The detailed negotiations can then commence and completed within the two year time frame.